THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ORCHID CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTIES PVT.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/442/2009HC KeralaKLHC01025203200907 April 2016Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeal does not merit interference with the Tribunal's decision. The reasoning was based on the fact that the tax amount involved was less than Rs. 2 lakhs, and in terms of CBDT circular dated 24.10.2005, such appeals were not required to be filed unless they involved repetitive matters or questions of law. The court also noted that subsequent circulars further restricted the prosecution of appeals to specific circumstances, such as those involving the validity of notifications or the vires of provisions. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on these grounds, without delving into the substantive merits of the case.

What were the facts?

This is an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cochin Bench, dated November 25, 2005. The respondent is Orchid Construction and Properties Pvt. Ltd. The appeal was filed without the High Court formulating any specific question of law. Upon issuance of notice, the court was informed that the respondent's establishment is closed and the respondent has left. The High Court examined the impugned ITAT order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue merits interference with the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, given the tax amount involved and the prevailing CBDT circulars. The Revenue contended that the appeal should be heard on merits. The Respondent did not present any arguments as they were not present. The Tribunal, in its impugned order, noted that the tax amount involved was less than Rs. 2 lakhs. It also referred to CBDT circular dated 24.10.2005, which stipulated that no appeal should be filed unless a repetitive matter or a question of law is involved. The Tribunal also considered subsequent circulars that suggested not prosecuting appeals except in cases involving the validity of notifications or vires of provisions.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2016/18TH CHAITHRA, 1938 ITA.No. 442 of 2009 --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 689/2005 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 25-11-2005 APPELLANT/APPELLANT: ------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN.

BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT: ----------- ORCHID CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., XLI/821, PULLEPADY CROSS ROAD,, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017.

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-04-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & ANU SIVARAMAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = I.T.A. No.442 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7th day of April, 2016 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.Notice was issued in this appeal without the court formulating any question of law. The notice taken out has been returned with the endorsement that the establishment of the respondent is closed and that the respondent has left. 2.We have examined the impugned order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that the tax amount involved in that appeal was less than Rs.2 lakhs and in terms of CBDT circular dated 24.10.2005, no appeal was required to be filed unless a repetitive matter is involved or any question of law is involved. With the passage of time, different other circulars have been issued, including to the effect that such appeals need not be prosecuted except in cases where they involve questions relating to the validity of any notification or

I.T.A. No.442/09 2 the vires of any provision. We, therefore, are of the view that this appeal does not merit interference with the Tribunal's decision and it is accordingly dismissed. sd/- Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge sd/- Anu Sivaraman, Judge

sj /True Copy/ P.A. to Judge

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →